I presented as an option for the specific item you presented as an example. I never claimed it's an option for the majority of shippers. It's an option for many of the cheap, light items people present as examples.
Nope, still wrong. It doesn't meet the length and width requirements, and if you shoved it in an envelop the size needed, it wouldn't meet the thickness variability requirements or the deflection requirements. And even if it did, once again, it would still be more expensive. So, you didn't claim it as an option for the majority of shippers: which implies that you concede the main point you raised, that there are plenty of cases where shipping within the US is more expensive.
Regardless, you're not trying to honestly assess the examples given. But I guess I was incorrect when I said I was done with the conversation-- I couldn't help pointing out for other readers how you persist in being wrong.
>So, you didn't claim it as an option for the majority of shippers: which implies that you concede the main point you raised, that there are plenty of cases where shipping within the US is more expensive.
No, it doesn't imply that. For other configurations there are different programs that reduce the cost; elsewhere in this thread I pointed out that using parcel select lightweight would reduce the claimed shipping cost by a factor of 3.
My claim is that the specific examples people give tend to be wrong. I'm sure there's some exotic configurations where China ends up paying less. It's just that virtually none of the articles about the topic point to correct examples.
